Notable Florida Decisions

The court held that Ms. Tracz's claims that she entered the plea unaware of the ten-year driver's license revocation or that she was pleading to a third DUI were conclusively refuted by the record and properly denied. The court also held that a claim based solely on counsel's failure to communicate in person, without more, does not state an ineffective assistance claim. However, the court held that Ms. Tracz's broader allegations regarding counsel's failure to provide meaningful advice about strategy, negotiations, and plea alternatives; failure to investigate or challenge prior DUI conviction

The court reversed convictions on counts XXI and XXIV for insufficient evidence because the jury had to stack multiple inferences lacking independent support to connect Crowley to those specific exhibits, violating the prohibition against impermissible pyramiding of inferences. The court affirmed the conviction on count XXII because three independently corroborated facts—the file in Crowley's personal email account, GPS metadata matching his residence, and the device's independent association with Crowley through another exhibit—converged without depending on unproven prior inferences. The cou

The trial court did not commit reversible error in finding no discovery violation regarding a late-delivered video interview of the driver-accomplice, because the State had disclosed the interview's existence and a summary of its contents to the defense long before trial, and a full Richardson hearing is not required absent a discovery violation. Additionally, the witness's changed statement about timing did not materially alter her recorded statement in a way that prejudiced the defense's ability to present its theory that three men were in the vehicle.

The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution do not require the use of a certified interpreter, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting videos of a recorded interview translated by an uncertified interpreter when adequate procedural safeguards are in place to test the accuracy of the translation.

When a trial court's judgment rests on two independent grounds and an appellant challenges only one, the appellate court must affirm; additionally, motions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 are not available in non-adversarial probate proceedings absent a declaration of adversary proceeding.

A petition for declaratory statement must apply to the petitioner's particular circumstances to allow the petitioner to select a proper course of action and may not seek an agency's opinion solely to determine the application of a statute to a person other than the petitioner.

The Court amended the bar admission rules to permit inactivation rather than termination of applications for non-compliant applicants who have not passed all bar examination portions, extended the postponement notice requirement from 7 to 14 days, and increased various filing and administrative fees.

Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.160 is amended to provide that a defendant is considered 'formally charged' for speedy trial purposes when a traffic citation, notice to appear, summons, information, or indictment is served, whichever occurs first, rather than at arrest.

A trial court abuses its discretion by modifying timesharing in an interim order when a petition for modification is pending and the only motion noticed for hearing is a contempt motion, absent a real emergency and evidentiary hearing on the child's best interests.

A foreclosure judgment entered without adequate notice to the defendant and opportunity to be heard violates procedural due process and must be vacated and remanded for a new trial.

The Court adopted amendments to Rule 20-6.1 to permit Florida Registered Paralegals to receive lecture credit for approved seminars (up to 3 credit hours per 50 minutes at basic seminars or up to 5 credit hours per 50 minutes at intermediate seminars) and to allow the Executive Director or Board of Governors to grant extensions for continuing education completion under specified circumstances.

The Court amended the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to authorize electronic voting in exigent circumstances, exempt certain sponsored search engine results from advertisement filing requirements, clarify confidentiality protections for legal specialization proceedings, and require paralegals to notify their supervising lawyers of changes in registration status.

A third-party purchaser at a judicial foreclosure sale acquires a protectable legal interest upon issuance of the certificate of sale and is entitled to due process notice and an opportunity to be heard before the sale can be vacated.

A trial court may award attorney's fees based on a spouse's bad faith conduct during litigation, but must provide specific findings regarding the hourly rate, hours expended, and the portion of fees occasioned by the misconduct.

A plaintiff has an absolute right to amend its complaint once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, even if the amendment would be futile, and dismissal with prejudice that deprives the plaintiff of this right is error.

An indigent prisoner's entitlement to court services under Florida Statutes § 57.085 does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden to prepare the summons; the clerk of court issues only the summons presented by the plaintiff and does not prepare or assist in preparing it.

A detainee seeking mandamus relief to compel transfer to a different dormitory must demonstrate a clear legal right to that specific placement and allege facts establishing a substantial risk of serious harm, not merely vague possibilities of harm or general conflicts with other detainees.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by allowing a mentally disabled victim to testify while holding a comfort item such as a teddy bear under Florida Statutes section 92.55(5), and a six-person jury in noncapital criminal cases does not violate the Sixth Amendment under existing Supreme Court precedent in Williams v. Florida.

The court held that Craven's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during jury selection was procedurally barred as a relitigation of a direct appeal issue and failed on the merits because counsel could not be deemed deficient for failing to request a readback already suggested by the State, and no reasonable probability existed that such a readback would have changed the trial court's ruling. The court held that Craven's Giglio/Napue claim regarding false testimony about his age at first removal from his biological mother's home was procedurally barred because the facts supporting the cl

Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, does not apply retroactively to insurance policies issued before the statute's July 1, 2021 effective date. The statute's presuit notice requirement, when viewed as a whole with its penalties and effects on insurers' obligations and insureds' rights, is substantive rather than procedural. The Legislature did not clearly express an intent for retroactive application in the statutory text, and the inclusion of an effective date constitutes evidence against retroactive application.

The ICWA's beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof for the serious-harm finding does not preempt Florida's clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for the separate findings required under Florida law to terminate parental rights to an Indian child. Both burdens may be applied concurrently without conflict.

A new spouse's payment of household expenses for his own household does not constitute "income" to the remarried parent for child support calculation purposes because such payments are not "payments to" the former spouse as contemplated by sections 61.30(2)(a)13. and 61.046(8), Florida Statutes. By contrast, payments made by relatives or third parties directly to or for the benefit of a parent—such as reimbursements for the parent's bills or in-kind payments reducing the parent's living expenses—may constitute income if they are payments made to that parent. The trial court must recalculate ch

The trial court's designation of Estrada as a habitual felony offender was proper and any error was harmless because the record demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the required facts; additionally, the statutory obligation to pay for electronic monitoring need not be orally pronounced at sentencing because it follows by operation of law once electronic monitoring is imposed.

When a trial court's judgment rests on two independent grounds and an appellant challenges only one, the court must affirm; here, the paternity finding was harmless error because the homestead determination independently supported the judgment, and post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 are unavailable in non-adversarial probate proceedings.

When reviewing a motion for judgment of dismissal in a termination of parental rights case, the appellate court must view evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the department as the nonmoving party and can affirm dismissal only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain termination. Here, the evidence supported termination grounds against all three parents.

A 911 recording of a robbery victim's statements to a police dispatcher is nontestimonial and does not violate the Confrontation Clause when made during an ongoing emergency, even if the victim is later unavailable for cross-examination at trial.

A successive rule 1.540(b) motion is not authorized or timely under rule 9.130(a)(5) when the grounds asserted were known to the movant at the time the first rule 1.540(b) motion was filed, and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review such a motion.

Upon revocation of probation, a trial court may impose any sentence it could have originally imposed, including a PRR mandatory life sentence, even if the State waived PRR sentencing at the initial plea hearing, provided the defendant qualified as a PRR at the time of sentencing and the PRR determination is ministerial and does not require jury findings.

A capital defendant has no constitutional entitlement to records relating to clemency proceedings, no constitutional right to effective assistance of clemency counsel, and cannot circumvent procedural bars through a habeas petition seeking cumulative review of alleged errors spanning forty years.

The trial court properly denied Walker's motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was sufficient to support the trespass conviction, and Walker's oral waiver of his right to a jury trial was valid based on his personal request for a bench trial after a proper colloquy and repeated confirmations at pre-trial hearings.